Talk:Kolkata Metro

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleKolkata Metro has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
July 30, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that India's first metro, the Kolkata Metro, was first proposed in 1919 but became operational only in 1984?
Current status: Good article

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article

[edit]

This article and the related articles like routes, stations etc. were outdated. So I updated them, based on the official website of-

If u have any issues regarding the edits and update, lets have a talk in my talkpage.
Saha ( talk ) 17:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the Line Colours

[edit]

As per the articles on the lines, the colour schemes are-

  • Line 1 - NAVY
  • Line 2 - RED
  • Line 3 - YELLOW
  • Line 4 - ORANGE
  • Line 5 - PINK
  • Line 6 - GREEN

Recently I came across this official map (https://mtp.indianrailways.gov.in/uploads/files/1504000368490-System%20Map%20of%20Metro%20Railway_31_03_2017.jpg), where the colour scheme is different.

  • Line 1 - NAVY
  • Line 2 - GREEN
  • Line 3 - VIOLET
  • Line 4 - RED
  • Line 5 - Pink
  • Line 6 - ORANGE

Since till now, no colour coding system exits, we can either keep the current one, or update according to the official map. I have put this here, so that the editors can have a discussion. Saha ( talk ) 07:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ImSonyR9: @SNag.in: @Bipradipmandal: @Ranban282: @খাঁ শুভেন্দু: @Sagnick007: @Sagnickacharya: @Mattximus:

Thanks, Saha for informing. I have already corrected those route colors as much as possible. ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs)

editors of kolkata metro

[edit]

Soumo Dutt (talk · contribs), ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs) now we have Rail-interchange icons. use them check here

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

[edit]

@ArnabSaha:Could you tell me why you removed my diagram？If there are any errors in this diagram, please tell me. Thanks. -Painjet (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Painjet, hi
1) the map was incorrect. some stations aren't operational, but was included
2) operational map was given in the evolution of kolkata metro map. ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnabSaha:Ok, I got it, thanks. The evolution of kolkata metro map is a gif file. I do not think it is intuitive for readers. Obviously, the svg or png is more suitable.-Painjet (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Painjet, remove dakshineshwar, baranagar and phoolbagan from the map. also remove the heading. ❯❯❯ S A H A 07:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, Ok.Painjet (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly better to show operational map in the infobox, not the map with uc/planned lines. Jklamo (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible suggestions

[edit]

Here is a list of suggestions I have for this page.

  • Expand the lead section (the very top) a bit, to 3 paragraphs at the very least. Possibly have the second paragraph talk about history and the third paragraph talk about operations, fares, etc. But don't make it too long.  Done
  • Per WP:CITELEAD, citations aren't really needed in the lead section if they are also used elsewhere.  Done
  • In "History", clarify what independence is. Indian independence?  Done
  • Use {{convert}} to convert km to miles where applicable.  Done
  • Avoid using terms like "crore" per MOS:CRORE, unless you link them or provide a clarification.  Done
  • By 2011-12, the Railway Ministry announced plans for the construction of five new metro lines and an extension of the existing North-South corridor. - what is the status of this?  Done
  • For the "Network" section, should it be part of the "Lines" section? Also, these tables need more sources, particularly for track gauge and length.  Done

More later. epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius,
  • the lines mentioned in the 6th point (2011-12) are the same 5 lines mentioned in the network. (line 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  • the 7th point 'network section', is similar to Delhi Metro. In that article also, network and lines are different. and I also think it is better, otherwise, further sub-headings will be required for the line names, which won't look good...
  • now regarding the WP:CITELEAD, the citations aren't used elsewhere, so better keep them. ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will respond to these one by one.
  • the lines mentioned in the 6th point (2011-12) are the same 5 lines mentioned in the network. (line 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) - in this case, you can have a link to the section below, in "network".  Done
  • I see your point about keeping "network" separate.
  • the citations aren't used elsewhere, so better keep them - preferably, the citations should be used somewhere else in the article.
Also:
  • Sentences like It has a combination of elevated, ground-level and underground lines - in these cases, you might mean "tracks".  Done
  • Use {{TrackGauge}} for track gauges. E.g. instead of {{convert|1676|mm}}, use {{TrackGauge|1676mm}}.  Done
  • Relatively minor information, such as signal upgrades and the stations in metro extensions, should usually be moved to the respective articles about the lines.
  • Kolkata Metro is the busiest metro system in India based on passengers carried per service. Each service carries an average of 2,465 people, while Delhi carries 1,111. - this isn't usually a metric used to measure ridership.
  • Platform lengths, and the fact that certain stations have island or side platforms, are usually not important and can be removed.
More later. epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius,
  • this isn't usually a metric used to measure ridership - ya. i know. but, on the basis of per km or per service, it tops. so I mentioned.
  • this case, you can have a link to the section below, in "network" - linked them.
  • preferably, the citations should be used somewhere else in the article - removed all except one. couldn't shift it anywhere.
  • signal upgrades - keeping this, since it is the only system in India to have this. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here are more comments.
  • Further expansions - can you note which ones are now underway, which ones have been confirmed, and which have not been confirmed/are canceled, if any?
  • 55 – 60 km/h - use the {{convert}} template  Done
  • Navigation information is available on Google Maps. - is this noteworthy? Seems to be quite common.
  • Are "Tokens" and "Smart Card" supposed to be subsections of "Fares"? {{done}
  • Durga Puja special services - can you summarize what Durga Puja is, in a single sentence? What is pandal-hopping?  Done
  • What is lac? Seems to fall under WP:CRORE  Done
  • The newly inaugurated Line 2 - as of when?
  • Since the electrification of Kolkata metro is of the 3rd Rail - "since the Kolkata metro uses third-rail electrification". There are more minor grammar errors like these, but I think a copy-editor will pick them up.
These are my final comments so far. epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius,
  • Further expansions- no progress regarding that. those are surveyed and planned since the existing lines aren't complete yet, the govt decided not to sanction any new.
  • Navigation information is available on Google Maps- in India, the feature is new. also for other modes of transport. and found this in the Delhi metro too.
  • The newly inaugurated Line 2- 13 Feb, 2020. just after a month, lockdown happened, and that's why very less ridership. and it's too low w.r.t. to Line 1, so mentioned "new" ❯❯❯ S A H A 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kolkata Metro/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this soon. I note that there have been two previous reviews, but after extensive consultations with the nominator, this has been improved greatly. Still, I hope to post feedback soon. epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Prose

[edit]
  • There are a total of 358 services everyday - "every day" in this case as "everyday" is an adverb

More to come. epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

solved this issue ❯❯❯   S A H A 12:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An east–west metro railway connection, named the "East–West Tube Railway", was proposed for Kolkata in 1921 by Harley Dalrymple-Hay, but it was ultimately not undertaken due to a lack of funds in 1923. - I'd move the "in 1923" part earlier. I'd suggest "it was cancelled in 1923" or something similar. Also, this needs a source.
  • 'Shield Tunneling' & 'Cut & Cover' - these should be lowercase, and the "&" should be "and".
  • Despite this, services began on 24 October 1984 - I wonder whether this should be a new paragraph.
  • by bridging the 1.80 km (1.12 mi) gap in the middle - a gap between which stations?
  • had 50–50 shares in it - I'd suggest "each had a half-share". It's not clear that this is a percent
  • Major modifications: I'd suggest making these paragraphs instead of bullet points.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, done ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Kolkata Metro route map be collapsed by default? Generally this is discouraged per MOS:COLLAPSE.
  • A major realignment in June 2016 increased the length to 16.55 km (10.28 mi) (10.81 km (6.72 mi) underground, 5.77 km (3.59 mi) elevated). - any way to rephrase this? This consists of several parentheses back to back.
  • (12.40 km (7.71 mi)), etc. - In places where parentheses are nested, I would suggest using |disp=sqbr in the {{convert}} template.
  • The system operates between 06:45 and 21:55 - Here, I would add the relevant timezone.
  • Tourist Smart Card: - Maybe have this as a subsection instead
  • These type of smart cards, are for - The singular/plural is inconsistent and should be "These types of smart cards are for" or "This type of smart card is for"
  • Currently, Presently, Recently, etc - as of when? There are a bunch of these in the article.
  • Indian Railways gave a go-ahead to the proposal, and installation work is supposed to be complete within 2–3 years - from what date?
  • Also, Indian Railways - I'd advice against starting a sentence with "Also", and suggest "In addition".
  • All these lead to snags, delays and accidents - "All of these factors have lead to..."
done ❯❯❯   S A H A 14:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also, I would like to add that, it's better to keep the route map collapsed, since its big. ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha: On Discord, SounderBruce pointed out a few more MOS issues. I have fixed most of these, but looking again, there are still a few concerns I had:

  • Consider converting the bullet lists to prose.
  • (about 4 km (2.5 mi) shorter than the current East-West Corridor) - should the outer parentheses instead be dashes, commas, or other punctuation?
  • Presently truncated till Howrah Maidan - truncated past Howrah Maidan?
  • It uses the five-and-a-half-foot (1.7-metre) Indian gauge, a broad gauge rolling stock. - Technically the track isn't itself "rolling stock", so you can cut that. Rolling stock refers to the trains.

I didn't find any glaring errors, and I still think this is nearing GA status, though Sounder might think differently. Hopefully we can straighten out these issues before promotion. epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius,
  1. the 1971 masterplan was from Saltlake/bidhannagar to ramrajatala. (google map). but when the line was sanction in 2008, it was till howrah maidan. in future, it might go to ramrajatala (the section was surveyed again in 2012) ❯❯❯   S A H A 08:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ArnabSaha, All right. So it would be Salt Lake to Howrah Maidan instead of the full route? Is that correct? epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius, ya. but calling it full route might be wrong. the 2008 plan was from saltlake to howrah maidan only. ramrajatala will be an extension of it. ❯❯❯   S A H A 14:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. actually this is a wrong sentence. The Kolkata Metro Line 1 uses broad gauge tracks, thus broad gauge bogies. but the twist is, the shells are of same dimensions as metre gauge train shell. ❯❯❯   S A H A 15:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha, I see. I think this may need to be clarified, then. epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, done ❯❯❯   S A H A 16:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV and coverage

[edit]

No issues here.

References

[edit]
  • Some of these references do not have dates and some do. Same inconsistencies go with authors, and even access dates. This should generally be consistent.
  • Also, check that reference formatting is consistent. For telegraphindia.com, I see such different formatting as "The Telegraph.", "The Telegraph. Calcutta, India." and "www.telegraphindia.com"
  • The Times of India references need to be formatted better.
  • Is ref 10 actually to web.archive.org, or is it to a different website?
  • Ref 13 should be formatted, because readers can see the bare url.
  • Some of these titles are in all-caps and should be title case.

Overall, the formatting needs a bit of work. epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the refs like <noqiki>Dec 2, Rupak Banerjee are still formatted a bit strangely. Some of the www.telegraphindia.com references need publication dates, and the work should be given as "The Telegraph". In addition, other references may need publication dates too. epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done ❯❯❯   S A H A 14:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • All images are appropriately licensed, even the non-free logo.
done ❯❯❯   S A H A

General comments

[edit]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK toolbox

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by ArnabSaha (talk). Self-nominated at 19:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Given this is a recent GA, everything is fine except I am having trouble finding a reference that clearly supports the claim (present only in lead and unreferenced) that it was the first proposed system of this type in India? No qualms about it being the first operational, but can we get a quote for the 'first proposed'? If not I suggest this claim is removed from hook and the lead. The QPQ check tool is broken (or simply fails to confirm the nom has never submitted a DYK before), so I am assuming QPQ is not needed (But it is always welcome!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Hi. it was proposed by the British in 1919-20. see the "early attempts" section. also, this is my 3rd dyk, so didnt do qpq. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha But does the source clearly say it was the first proposed, or that no other propositions of its type were made before? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, till date no other document has been found. no sources mention any other cities. also, Kolkata was the capital of India till 1911, the British used to build things in Kolkata (example-Tram). the imes of India and theprint sources might help. it says
1) "As per records, for the British, ... They were keen that people avoid the additional expenses of of living in the city and migrate to places like ‘Dum Dum an Baraset"
2) "The underwater tube rail in Kolkata was planned by the British government when they were building a tunnel under the Thames river in London"
3) "the East-West Metro project across the Hooghly was conceptualised by the British in 1921, at the same time as the river Thames was being tunnelled in London" ❯❯❯   S A H A 06:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArnabSaha Hmmm. I'll ping another experienced DYK reviewer User:Yoninah for the second opinion whether the word proposed is ok. I am still concerned that if no source says so outright it borders on WP:OR. Lack of source to the contrary is not necessarily a confirmation of the fact. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, OK. also, I checked multiple Indian cities article, no one mentions before Kolkata. ❯❯❯   S A H A 04:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I think you are right, but that doesn't mean we can say so per WP:OR. Which is why I asked for another opinion on this. WP:NOTTRUTH etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have 1 more thing to add. Even if the British proposal source is controversial, the 1950 Indian proposal can be considered. As per the official website, "It was Dr. B.C. Roy, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, who for the first time conceived the idea in 1949 of building an Underground Railway" and "With a view to finding out an alternative solution to alleviate the suffering of the Kolkatans, the Metropolitan Transport Project (Rlys) was set up in 1969." ❯❯❯   S A H A 07:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Yoninah: sir/ma'am, the DYK is stuck. ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be tempting to submit yet another first hook, but you have plenty more in this GA article to write a better hook. This popped out at me:
  • ALT1: ... that as India's first metro, the Kolkata Metro was constructed through trial-and-error over a period of 23 years? Yoninah (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, this one is also good. the first underwater metro thing can also be added. ❯❯❯   S A H A 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, partially correct. the 1st line is constructed was underground, with 1 station elevated and 1 at-grade. yes, underwater is still under construction.
@Yoninah and ArnabSaha:. The span of construction, which as you may note can be still ongoing, is IMHO not as interesting as pointing out the uncontroversial time range I propise in the following ALT2 below. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ...that India's first metro, the Kolkata Metro, was first proposed in 1919 but became operational only in 1984?
Is "ONLY" required here? doesn't seem appropriate. ❯❯❯   S A H A 06:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Only" is fine. It turns it into a hook, as opposed to a statement of fact. Yoninah (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok then, keep this. ❯❯❯   S A H A 15:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a full review: GA received within 7 days of nomination. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Images are freely licensed. I have tagged one sentence as needing an inline citation, as it verifies one of the ALT2 hook facts. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, the whole paragraph is a mix of the citations mentioned at the end. ❯❯❯   S A H A 17:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Swami Vivekananda metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Swami Vivekananda metro station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Swami Vivekananda metro station until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Priya Thakur metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Priya Thakur metro station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Priya Thakur metro station until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mother Teresa metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Mother Teresa metro station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Mother Teresa metro station until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Loknath metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Loknath metro station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Loknath metro station until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bibhuti Bhushan metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Bibhuti Bhushan metro station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Bibhuti Bhushan metro station until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Yuva Bharati Kirangan metro station" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Yuva Bharati Kirangan metro station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Yuva Bharati Kirangan metro station until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Metro line articles on Wikipedia are arbitrarily named

[edit]

I have noticed for quite some time that Kolkata Metro's lines are arbitrarily named on Wikipedia. The operators (Metro Railway, Kolkata) do not use numbers anywhere on their website, see https://mtp.indianrailways.gov.in/index.jsp, they exclusively use colors for designating the lines, like Delhi Metro. The colored designations are also the WP:COMMONNAME. Here are some random news articles of the top of Google when you search "Kolkata Metro": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] Not only that, it seems that the numbered system was "invented" by Wikipedia itself as placeholders when the lines were not named yet (see also #Discussion regarding the Line Colours), and having been under numbered titles for almost 2 decades, it has in-turn influenced some news agencies that very likely rely partly upon Wikipedia for background research, such as https://metrorailtoday.com/, https://metrorailnews.in/, https://www.constructionworld.in/ among others, whereas official railway, government and WP:RS sources has always been using colored names, rather than any numbered designation. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you go back to the article history of Kolkata Metro and those of the various lines, each line is either identified by the direction (East-West, North-South) or by the locations they serve (Airport Metro, Baranagar-Barrackpore Metro, etc.) by WP:RSes. This 2017 system map by Kolkata Metro uses the latter scheme. No one seems to have used numbered lines, ever. All sources (reliable or not) that I found which uses "Line [digit]" scheme were written years after Wikipedia had already been using numbered line names. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have cleaned up everything, but {{Rail-interchange}} remians to be updated. However, I'm too tired to prepare a mockup and request edits, so it would be great if anyone else could take it up. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think line numbers should stay on articles as ‘Formerly known as line x’ because this news called Blue line as line 1 and Orange line as line 6: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/kolkata-trial-starts-at-new-garia-metro-hub-to-link-north-south-line-with-airport-corridor/amp_articleshow/93148492.cms
Beside this, another news on 8th september, 2022 published that all lines should called by colour not number: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/metro-lines-get-colour-codes/amp_articleshow/90063745.cms
As colouring line thing became popular later, some people still call lines as line number, I think. ArkodipH (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArkodipH: I still cannot find a source that predates Wikipedia's use of these line numbers. I have carefully checked some of the earliest references on the corresponding articles. If you look at Metro Railway's old press releases (archived) and timetable (archived), you would see that the blue line is identied as North-South and green line is identified by East-West. In the case of green line, its two operational stretches are separately known as Line-1 (Sealdah-SLSV) and Line-2 (Howrah-Esplanade) (source). Furthermore, I tried searching old posts at Metro Railway Kolkata's facebook page, I did not find any post with the format "Line n" in it. They are solely identified by the source-destination pair (except N-S & E-W metros):
  1. Joka-Esplanade Metro Project: 31 Aug 2021 (1), (2), 3 April 2022, 14 April 2022, 15 Sept 2022, 16 Sept 2022, 11 Nov 2022, 22 Nov 2022, 23 Nov 2022
  2. Noapara-Barasat via Bimanbandar Metro project: 25 March 2021, 14 July 2021, 12 Nov 2021
  3. Kavi Subhas-Airport Metro project: 17 April 2021, 17 Nov 2021, 24 Sept 2022
  4. New Garia-Airport Metro Project: 4 May 2021
  5. Dum Dum Airport-New Garia: 9 Feb 2021
—CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the reasons for all my edits being reverted (even though I'm still disappointed by this), I still think the former Wikipedia names could still be mentioned as a redirect notice saying e.g. '"Kolkata Metro Line 1" redirects here.' with an other uses link/disambiguation if it applies, if not in the lead or infobox. This is because people reading the pages who've mostly known the Kolkata Metro lines by their former Wikipedia names with the Line numbers, might get confused with seeing the pages renamed to the current colour coded names, which was the reason I mentioned the Line numbers in the lead before they all got reverted, given that they were just renamed recently and having a redirect notice above the lead will inform people about the former page name. Anyway, just a suggestion from me and if most of you disagree with it, then its okay and I won't make any further edits regarding this issue. Broman178 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think hatnotes will work. Also, if there is sufficiently high usage of those names in news sources such as those ArkodipH above, we may add something along the lines of "formerly informally known as Line 1". —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I initially said I would not make any further changes on this issue if my suggestions were not supported, I've added hatnotes/redirect notes referencing the former page names to all the Kolkata Metro Line pages in Wikipedia, as per your reply. So I hope these new changes are okay with you, as I do believe it would be absurd not to mention the former page names in any shape or form, given that they were the dominant Wikipedia names for most of their existence in Wikipedia. Broman178 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear & thanks. Broman178 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

[edit]

It has been a little bit since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and saw lots of uncited statements, including the entire "QR Code Ticket" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

kolkata water metro DHEU?

[edit]

@CX Zoom@Broman178@ArkodipH@ArnabSaha@Yoninah sorry for pinging you guys, i had a small query (instead of individualing going and asking i thought of call all together and asking+avoiding user talk page flooding) as usual. i was searching metro of kolkata metro and found this video claiming kolkata's water metro named "DHEU" which is a term only currently known for Kochi Water Metro. while searching with various fliters [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] telling about its launch in January 2025 (unheard to me till now). is it really anything related to a water metro in kolkata or is it just a normal ferry. even if its linked say like its a prototype of kolkata water metro system, we can make something like failed Skybus Metro attemot in Goa. so please tell more about it and do we need a page like Kolkata Water Metro, DHEU (ferry) or not.

once again sorry to you guys for pinging by me for my query. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 08:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is just upgradation of normal ferry service, from diesel (probably) to electric. Kochi Water Metro have stations, but no station mention in the news. ArkodipH (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so having stations (of land metro level) is the distinction between water metro and normal ferry service?@ArkodipH vro ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 11:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. It run by government of West Bengal, whereas Kochi Water Metro run by Kochi Metro Rail Limited. And news said that ‘Outram ghat’ not ‘Outram ghat metro (station)’. But I might be wrong as I am only giving description of Kochi Water Metro. I don't know if Government of West Bengal call it Water metro. But there no news saying about it. ArkodipH (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 12:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, but I'm sorry to say that this is unfortunately not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable about. Although I think ArkodipH has explained this relatively well regardless. Broman178 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 10:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a standalone service, not integrated in any way to Kolkata Metro. I think they are using "Water Metro" as a catchy term, not an actual metro. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, btw i thought this misunderstanding/shock element/catchy term will be limited to content creators or vloggers, but i see news article as no exception ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 17:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Kolkata Metro

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including the entire "QR Code Ticket" section. Z1720 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a delist from a look through the article. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors and straight up not very good writing (the fare section is a mess to read and needs to be reorganized, the "issues" section really doesn't seem to be justified at all, and there's a completely empty rolling stock section). This is in addition to the numerous paragraphs and entire sections lacking citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720, thanks for the ping. The GA promotion was from a while ago (nearly 5 years to the day, as I write this). Since then, this article has undergone drastic changes - unfortunately, not all for the better. In addition to the issues mentioned above by TAOT, there are other issues I see:
  • Currently, the Network section lists the Yellow Line as one of the four operational lines, even though it's technically not yet operational. The four currently-operating lines are already listed.
  • Some text in the article (like the number of stations, and some of the names of the lines) is bolded in violation of MOS:BOLD.
  • This article unnecessarily capitalizes certain things like a Tunnel boring machine hit an Aquifer at Bowbazar. This wasn't the case when I originally reviewed the article, by the way; the inconsistent formatting and capitalization is more of a recent development.
  • The "Proposed expansions" section is from 2012. Since then, some of these expansions have been constructed, but it isn't clear which ones; this section is currently presented in present tense.
Unfortunately, I also have to !vote delist. However, I do hope @ArnabSaha will come back to remedy these issues, or that someone else will fix them in his place (as ArnabSaha hasn't edited for nearly 7 months now). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If folks aren't around, I could theoretically take a look over the weekend even though this isn't necessarily my area of expertise. Sohom (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, I can also work on it – though I am not sure what turn-around does a reassessment expect. For instance, if it's to be fixed in next 7 days, then it's unlikely that I'll be able to address everything in that span. Let me know! — WeWake (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeWake and @Sohom Datta, that would be appreciated. I didn't initiate the GAR, but from past experience, a GAR can be kept open for as long as someone is actively working on it, even it takes a few months. Epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]